kambli 1 pil-106-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF  JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

rt
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.106 OF 2010

ou
…
National Confederation for Development
of Disabled and another ...Petitioners
v/s.

C
Union of India and ors. ...Respondents
…

Mr.Mahesh   Jethmalani,   Sr.Counsel   with   Mr.Kamlesh   Ghumre   and 

h
Ms.Gunjan Mangla i/b Mr.Rohit Mahadik for petitioners. 
Mr.Rajeev Chavan with Mr.H.V.Mehta for the respondent­UoI.
ig
Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for State.
...
H
CORAM: MOHIT  S. SHAH, C.J. & 
M.S.SANKLECHA, J.
DATE    : 4 December 2013
y

P.C.:
ba

By consent of parties, petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. In   this   public   interest   petition,   the   petitioners­National 

om

Confederation   for   Development   of   Disabled   have   prayed   for   writ   of 

mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the disabled persons in 
terms   of   Section   33   of   the   Persons   with   Disabilities   (Equal 
B

Opportunities,   Protection  of   Rights  and  Full  Participation)  Act,  1995 

(PWD Act) in  Indian Administrative Services posts to be filled up either 
by promotion from the State Civil Services or by selection from persons 
who hold gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of a state but are 
not   members   of   the   State   Civil   Services,   as   per   their   entitlement 
retrospectively   from   1996   and   to   comply   with   the   said   provisions 
hereafter.

1 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::

 kambli 2 pil-106-10

3. This petition was filed on 8 December 2010.

rt
ou
4. In   the   affidavit­in­reply   filed   by   Under   Secretary   in   the 
Union Public Service Commission on 1 March 2011 and in the affidavit­
in­reply   dated   20   April   2012   filed   by   Under   Secretary   in   the 

C
Department   of   Personnel   and   Training,   Government   of   India,   it   was 
contended   that   provisions   of   Section   33   of   PWD   Act   provides   for 
reservation   for   the   persons   with   disabilities   only   in   the   matter   of 

h
appointment to the vacancies in the establishment. It does not provide 
ig
for reservation in the matter of promotion. It was further contended 
that such reservation is applicable for persons with disabilities in Group 
H
“C” and Group “D” as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 20 
November 1989 and in the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 29 
December   2005   it   is   provided   that   3%   of   the   vacancies   in   case   of 
y

promotion to Group “C” and Group “D” posts in which the element of 
ba

direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for 
persons with disabilities.   It is, therefore, submitted that reservations 
for   persons   with   disabilities   were   never   available   in   Group   “A”   and 
om

Group “B” posts.  It is further contended that the whole scheme of the 
cadre   management   of   officers   appointed   by   promotion   to   the 
promotion quota of an All India Service is quite different in nature from 
B

the   scheme   of   things   as   are   generally   prevailing   in   the   matter   of 

promotion within the same service from a Group “B”/Group “A” post to 
a Group “A” posts.

2 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::

 kambli 3 pil-106-10

5. In any view of the matter, nothing is brought to our notice 
indicating that posts in the Indian Administrative Services are excluded 

rt
from reservation for persons with disabilities.  In fact, in Government of 

ou
India v/s. Ravi Prakash Gupta and anr. (2010) 7 SCC 626, the Supreme 
Court specifically dealt with the question of reservation in the matter of 
appointment   to   All   India   Service   and   held   that   reservation   was 

C
applicable to posts in Groups “A”, “B”, “C” & “D”.  The Supreme Court 
confirmed the decision of the High Court and issued mandamus to the 
Central Government to offer the writ petitioner appointment to one of 

h
the   reserved   posts   by   issuing   appropriate   appointment   order   in   the 
ig
Indian Administrative Services. 
H
6. In the said decision the Supreme Court also noted in paras 
20 and 26 that neither Section 32 nor Section 33 of the PWD Act make 
any distinction   with regard to Groups A, B, C and D posts.   It was 
y

further noted that proviso to Section 33 does empower the appropriate 
ba

Government to exempt any establishment from the provisions of the 
said   section,   having   regard   to   the   type   of   work   carried   out   in   any 
department or establishment.   No such exemption was brought to the 
om

notice of the Supreme Court on behalf of the Government of India. Nor 
has any such exemption been brought to our notice.
B

7. In view of the above, we have to proceed on the basis that 
the reservation is available for Group A and Group B posts as well and 
the same would, therefore, include posts in the Indian Administrative 
Services.

3 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::

 kambli 4 pil-106-10

8. Learned   counsel   for   the   Government   of   India,   however, 

submits that the above decision would not necessarily mean that the 

rt
posts   to   be   filled   by   promotion   are   also   available   for   reservation. 

ou
Learned   counsel   submits   that   the   case   of   Ravi   Gupta   (supra)   was 
concerned with direct recruitment to the Indian Administrative Services 
and not with regard to promotion.

C
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, thereupon, invited 
our   attention   to   the   recent   judgment   of   three   Judge   Bench   of   the 

h
Supreme Court in Union of India v/s. National Federation of the Blind 
ig
& ors.,  dated 8 October 2013. 
H
10. In   the   said   decision,   three   Judge   Bench   of   the   Supreme 
Court has in terms held that Section 33 of the Act establishes vividly 
the intention of the legislature viz., reservation of 3% for differently 
y

abled persons has to be computed on the basis of total vacancies in the 
ba

strength of a cadre and not just on the basis of the vacancies available 
in the identified posts.  The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of 
Section 33 of the Act and arrived at the following conclusion:­
om

“Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the  
computation of reservation for persons with disabilities has to be  
computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in an identical  
manner     viz.,   “computing   3%   reservation   on   total   number   of  
B

vacancies   in   the   cadre   strength”   which   is   the   intention   of   the  

legislature.   Accordingly,   certain   clauses   in   the   OM   dated   29  
December 2005, which are contrary to the above reasoning are  
struck down and we direct the appropriate Government to issue  
new   Office   Memorandum(s)   in   consistent   with   the   decision  
rendered by this Court.”
      (emphasis supplied)

4 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::

 kambli 5 pil-106-10

11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it 
is   clear   that   reservation   has   to   be   computed   with   reference   to   total 

rt
number of vacancies in the cadre strength and, therefore, no distinction 

ou
can be made between the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment and 
by promotion.  Total number of vacancies in the cadre strength would 
include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be 

C
filled in by promotion.

12. The Supreme Court has given following directions to the 

h
Government   of   India   to   ensure   proper   implementation   of   the 
ig
reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights:­
H
“54. In   our   opinion,   in   order   to   ensure   proper  
implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to  
protect   their   rights,   it   is   necessary   to   issue   the   following  
directions:
y

(i) We   hereby   direct   the   appellant   herein   to   issue   an  

appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29­12­2005 and the  
ba

subsequent Oms consistent with this Court's Order within three  
months from the date of passing of this judgment.

(ii) We   hereby   direct   the   “appropriate   Government”   to  

om

compute   the   number   of   vacancies   available   in   all   the  

“establishments”   and   further   identify   the   posts   for   disabled  
persons   within   a   period   of   three   months   from   today   and  
implement the same without default. 
B

(iii) The   appellant   herein   shall   issue   instructions   to   all   the  

departments/public   sector   undertakings/Government   companies  
declaring that the non observance of the scheme of reservation for  
persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non­
obedience   and   Nodal   Officer   in   department/public   sector  
undertakings/Government companies, responsible for the proper  
strict implementation of reservation for person with disabilities,  
be departmentally proceeded against for the default.”

5 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::

 kambli 6 pil-106-10

13. In   view   of   the   above   directions,   it   is   clear   that   the 

respondents will have to  give benefits of  reservation to persons with 

rt
disabilities   in   the   matter   of   promotion   to   posts   in   the   Indian 

ou
Administrative   Services   by   applying   the   Office   Memorandum   dated 
29   December   2005   and   subsequent   Office   Memorandum   consistent 
with   the   aforesaid   judgment   dated   8   October   2013   of   the   Supreme 

C
Court and accordingly give benefits of the reservation with effect from 
the   date   of   issuance   of   the   said   Office   Memorandum   dated 
29 December 2005.

h
14.
ig
Writ petition is, accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 
H
              CHIEF JUSTICE
y
ba

  (M.S.SANKLECHA,  J.)
om
B

6 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 02/12/2014 18:12:10 :::